Re: subversion vs cvs

From: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
To:
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: subversion vs cvs
Date: 2004-03-24 19:40:41
Message-ID: 4061E439.2070401@zara.6.isreserved.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> I've had plenty of pain with cvs in terms of directories not being
> first-class etc .. but I don't really contribute to pgsql so you guys
> probably don't have the same experience.
>
> I was just curious as it looks like eventually subversion (or arch :-)
> will be an alternative to cvs.

Eventually it (either subversion, or arch, or something else) will. You
just have to be patient :-) The movement will be very slow, we'll
probably see Apache 1.3.x disappear first before we see CVS disappear.

It _is_ frustrating to have to use something new, especially something
so frequently used like source control tool.

--
dave

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anony Mous 2004-03-24 19:42:43 pg_dump "what if?"
Previous Message Peter Lang 2004-03-24 18:59:21 pg_dump "what if?"

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Garamond 2004-03-24 19:45:26 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2004-03-24 18:53:07 LOOK - KITTENS! (was Re: pg_advisor schema proof of concept)